| c0rd said: There's a major difference between comparing graphics of the 360 and PS3, and of consoles from different generations. Graphical leaps were very important because it meant games can do things it previously could not - could Mario 64 be done on the SNES? Or could GTA3 be done on the PS1? I'm thinking no. This is one reason the Wii can do so well, even though the graphics aren't HD - they're good enough to flesh out any game concepts thought of right now. There aren't really games on the HD consoles that cannot be done on the Wii (with lesser graphics). Graphics were also important because they were so far from what reality looked like - now that we're approaching it, they don't matter nearly as much. When people argue about the 360 and PS3, it's ridiculous because it practically takes experts to determine which system is better than the other. If it has come to that, the graphical difference simply doesn't matter, even to most of the people on this site - if they say otherwise I'd guess it's out of console fanboyism. |
Gears of War could have been done on the N64 as gears of war stickmen edition - would it have been the same game essentially? Yes. Would it have been appealing to many people? No. Graphics look good now because the industry has been able to fake it so well, but there are limitations and you don't have to look far to find them. In Gears of War - every door looked the same, every covered window in a row of 10 would look exactly the same and there is always only one path to take so the developers can stream the required data. But I do agree theres hardy a game type now that cannot be done on the Wii.
@ PS3 vs 360, you're right.
Tease.
